>> Schedule I substances are those that have the following >>findings:
>> 1. The drug or other substance has a high potential for >>abuse.
>> 2. The drug or other substance has no currently accepted >>medical use in treatment in the United States.
>> 3. There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the >>drug or other substance under medical supervision
>Kratom doesn't meet any of those requirements, let alone >all three. The scheduling process requires reform, and >this impacts a large part of the world since drug >scheduling (and patent protection on pharma) are part of >American trade agreements.
Mitragynine, the major alkaloid identified from Kratom, has been reported as a partial opioid agonist producing similar or more potent effects than morphine. An interesting minor alkaloid of Kratom, 7-hydroxymitragynine, has been reported to be significantly more potent than morphine. (Actually, in studies, mitragynine was shown to be 13x more potent than morphine, and 7-hydroxymitragynine to be 4x more potent than mitragynine, as per Vicknasingam et al 2010 in the International Journal of Drug Policy, and Matsumoto et al., 2005, Life Sciences). Both Kratom alkaloids are reported to activate supraspinal mu- and delta- opioid receptors, explaining their use by chronic narcotics users to ameliorate opioid withdrawal symptoms.
The problem here isn't getting rid of a "legal high." Kratom should not be: it carries all the risks of opiates, and may have an independent mechanism of seizure activity. Physiologic dependence has also been reported, as well as thyroid dysfunction, liver damage, and if mixed with another opioid agonist (tramadol is easy to score on the street, as a very common med for diabetic neuropathic pain) it'll put you right in the ground, as has been seen in a number of deaths in Sweden.
You're right it doesn't meet all three criteria, although it certainly meets 1 and 2. 3 is a valid basis for conducting for medical research, to determine proper pharmacokinetics and see what safe usage scenarios are.
However, it's a serious drug, and needs to be regulated as such. It should not be Schedule I, the DEA's favorite way of creating job security for itself, but it seems like the opposition position that has developed is yelling "keep it freely available," which is unconscionable.